They will probably do the same thing the regular cal shippers do.....Get drilled

I don't see any rhyme or reason in the winners whatsoever. Unfortunately, pace handicapping on this stuff now belongs on the musty shelf with the "Slide-o-Matic" and the other crap they sell in the back of the DRF.

You don't think jockeys will learn to ride it in time? At the end of the Keeneland meet it seemed like they figured out that 24/48/1:12 were the magic fractions to win from the front and we actually had some wire jobs. The problem was they went through that awful stretch in the middle of the meet where they thought slowing it down to 1:15 or worse would be the best way to win on the front and that didn't work at all on the surface, it just turned it into a turf race.

Just so I'm clear, are the individuals complaining in this thread anti-synthetic surface (all of them), or just anti-Polytrack (in the form that it has taken at Keeneland and started at Del Mar)? My sense is that has not been that much negative reaction about the manner in which races have been run at either Arlington or the Cushion Track at Hollywood.

Also, I'd like to raise another point. In another thread (on "Drug Free Racing"), DrugS contended that there is an over-emphasis on speed-oriented pedigrees in the breed today, and that speed biased tracks carried these otherwise inferior horses farther than they would otherwise be able to do so. If "artificial" racing surfaces tend to negate the built-in speed bias otherwise prevalent on most conventional dirt surfaces, won't that work to the benefit of the breed in the long run?

..priceless

This is an excellent point! If these infirm speed horses start to lose more races, the breeding orientation toward speed will change. This can only result in more durable stock. With this idea in mind I am now looking upon these artificial surfaces in a more positive light. Maybe these surfaces will really become the salvation of racing that their supporters claim. Albeit for an entirely different reason!

It's not just speed that is all the rage, but quick developers.

Bingo.

To me, there is much ado about little regarding artificial surfaces. Hundreds of races are being run over them, quite successfully, and most quite predictably.

what is interesting to me would be to see if poly actually is safer that dirt. does anyone know the real world data for injuries over poly vs dirt?

The only real knock I've read anywhere is in an article in the Thoroughbred Times about the challenge of shoeing for the poly. They said that horses don't push off in the same manner as on conventional dirt and turf and that is causing soreness in the backend or backs of some horses.

Have not seen any of the races from Delmar yet...but just wanted to say that this is damn good discussion/thread...Riot you state your views very eloquently

All this thread is missing is oracle and eurobounce.

Exactly.

Really!!?? come on now.

i took a look at the first two days and there have been 12 poly races, half of them were won by horses with odds of 5/2 or less. Do you seriously not see any reason for those horses? Someone did.

Looking back at the bomb that paid $133 yesterday, I can see why that horse could easily be construed as very live.

Yes, because drugs help carry fragile made speed horses...much more than they do your typical endurance horses with strong constitutions.

The breeders can only breed for what wins races in this modern environment.

Horses have raced on natural dirt surfaces in America all throughout the 1900's.

The only reason it's come to where people think we need polytrack racing, and that horses can't stand up to rigors of racing over dirt, is because of the compounded negative effect drugs (legal and illegal) have had on the breed.

You, and a few others in this thread need to develop better reading comprehension skills.


I didn't compare the splits on that track to any other track...I compared it with the splits in other route races throughout the day.

I'm seriously done with this.

I'm not going to keep explaining this over and over to people who don't bother to finish reading.

How come you can say that without getting crucified here?:D

What conclusion did you draw from your pace analysis of those races?

You said the races were ugly, I'm curious what that means. I'm being honest when I say that to me, it seems that the races are being called ugly only because your traditonal pace analysis methods do not shed any light on the outcome, that they are the wrong tool. I don't know why that makes the races ugly, it might mean that a different tool is required. no?

once he's said the same thing 412 times, we'll lay into him too.

There is alot of published scientific information relating type of injuries sustained to track surface characteristics (the basis for the development of artificial surfaces, which are constructed to eliminate undesireable characteristics and maintain desired characteristics). Look in PubMed or google, "thoroughbred" and "fracture".

There is no one published study on "Polytrack vs dirt". Many tracks don't even officially track injuries. CA does have an injury reporting system.

Just this year, Dr. Mary Scollay has started a national injury reporting system, and alot of tracks have signed up to participate (search in BloodHorse for the article from May, I think, of this year?).

This will provide the detailed information needed to accurately cross-compare many tracks (turf, dirt, synthetic) regarding frequency of injury occurence at a particular track, type of injuries, types of injuries associated with different working surfaces, etc. I wish Steve would have Dr. Scollay as a guest on ATR.